Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49

Thread: ketosis = oxidized lipoproteins? page 3

  1. #21
    jmsmall's Avatar
    jmsmall is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    197
    Primal Fuel
    Stressful how exactly? Have you any references? The head of the Duke University metabolic clinic might disagree with you.

  2. #22
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by jmsmall View Post
    My LDL has not changed much, slightly up, but triglycerides are way down (in the 30's) and HDL has gone from 50 to 77. My cardiologist could not believe it.
    That comes just from eating saturated fat. I'm not in ketosis normally, my trigs are 50 and HDL-C is 80.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmsmall View Post
    Of course by more recent data, the LDL-C is not very predictive anyway; Apo-B or LDL-particle count are much better. (The "large fluffy" is also less predictive than particle counts. It's just that on average if you have large fluffy's, you TEND to have lower particle counts.) Non-HDL cholesterol (total minus HDL) is better than LDL as well.
    Well, it gets complicated here. The INTERHEART study really likes the ApoB/ApoA ratio. But MESA likes LDL-P. Looks like everyone likes what they measured -- great surprise :-/ -- and yes, LDL-C isn't that predictive. But the new biomarkers don't make that great advances either.

  3. #23
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    A look at Nora Gedgaudas' website made me very very suspicious of whatever she claims. To put it briefly, she doesn't look credible. Because of that I see no reason to read her book.

    To give a specific example, one paper in Drumroll's links (Neuroprotective and disease-modifying effects of the ketogenic diet) explicitly talks about neuroprotective effects of ketones. And sure, ketones help with epilepsy, that's been known for quite a while. But Alzheimer's? The paper quotes another paper (Reger et al. (2004)) which has indicated (I haven't read the paper, just the abstract) that feeding people suffering from AD some fat maybe makes them perform better on cognitive tests in the immediate aftermath of that feeding. It's a VERY long jump from there to saying that going in ketosis will lower your risk of Alzheimer's...
    Really??? You're the one not looking very credible here.

  4. #24
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    Really??? You're the one not looking very credible here.
    Really really :-P I'm not the one trying to sell you something.

    The paper is behind the paywall -- you want to buy me a copy? :-D And I'm not sure what your point is -- do you think the authors lied in the abstract, or what?

  5. #25
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    Really really :-P I'm not the one trying to sell you something.

    The paper is behind the paywall -- you want to buy me a copy? :-D And I'm not sure what your point is -- do you think the authors lied in the abstract, or what?
    My point is that you say someone "doesn't look credible". Well, I guess that's it then. I guess you have proven that she has nothing valuable to say. Try reading her book before you judge.

    If you might be capable of opening your mind a tiny crack, I might also suggest the blog of Dr. Georgia Ede called "Diagnosis: Diet". She is a psychiatrist approaching the treatment of many neurological and psychological disorders through the use of ketosis.

  6. #26
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    My point is that you say someone "doesn't look credible".
    Yes. When I read statements like

    "A single serving of trans-fat in French fries or chips may take up to two years for one’s body to fully eliminate, and its biological effects on your system in the meantime are chaotic"

    "MSG is an excitotoxin and always does some degree of neurological damage."

    "We are, in effect, creatures of the Ice Age"

    (all from Top 10 Nutritional Mistakes | Primal Body Primal Mind Diet and Nutrition)

    the person making such statements loses credibility with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    I guess you have proven that she has nothing valuable to say.
    It was enough for me to come to the opinion that a sufficiently large number of the things she says sound like excited pseudoscientific babble. She certainly says some correct things as well, but if I have to double-check her every word before believing it, what's the point of reading her?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    If you might be capable of opening your mind a tiny crack, I might also suggest the blog of Dr. Georgia Ede called "Diagnosis: Diet". She is a psychiatrist approaching the treatment of many neurological and psychological disorders through the use of ketosis.
    Thanks, I'll take a look.

  7. #27
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    "A single serving of trans-fat in French fries or chips may take up to two years for one’s body to fully eliminate, and its biological effects on your system in the meantime are chaotic"

    "MSG is an excitotoxin and always does some degree of neurological damage."

    "We are, in effect, creatures of the Ice Age"

    (all from Top 10 Nutritional Mistakes | Primal Body Primal Mind Diet and Nutrition)

    the person making such statements loses credibility with me.

    It was enough for me to come to the opinion that a sufficiently large number of the things she says sound like excited pseudoscientific babble. She certainly says some correct things as well, but if I have to double-check her every word before believing it, what's the point of reading her?
    The paper of her's you are quoting is a "Top Ten" list of the most common mistakes people make when dieting. It is not intended to be an exhaustive scientific study. It's an overview post.

    Every one of those points you quoted, about transfats, MSG, and humanity evolving during ice ages, are covered extensively in her book with all the scientific references to make you happy.

  8. #28
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    It's an overview post.
    Right. So even in an overview post she jumps on the alarmist bandwagon, goes on how NO ONE CAN BE TRUSTED!, and makes statements that do not pass the laugh test -- that does not bode well for her other writings.

    Basically, she wildly exaggerates and cherry-picks facts with what I'd call willful disregard for truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    Every one of those points you quoted, about transfats, MSG, and humanity evolving during ice ages, are covered extensively in her book with all the scientific references to make you happy.
    LOL. Since we can't debate her, would you, perhaps, care to defend any of those points?

  9. #29
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    How is this in any way shape or form "alarmist"? The "Trust no one" comment was a joke ffs. A joke on a very real situation that labeling of products as "organic" and "natural" is often misleading.

    10) Relying on superficial descriptions such as “natural” or even “organic” on labels to determine whether a food is truly healthy.

    Here’s where the Food Industry gets you. They hone in on buzzwords they think will sell their product. Terms like “natural” or “organic” are useless if the product in question is loaded with sugar (organic or not) or if the product contains highly processed ingredients and /or additives. Furthermore, labeling laws designed to supposedly “protect the consumer” are dubious, at best. Learn to read the fine print in the actual nutritional analysis on the back and come to understand the ingredient lists. A good rule of thumb where packaged food is concerned is to follow the edicts of ‘The X-Files’ and “Trust No One”. If it wouldn’t look like food to someone wandering around 40,000 years ago with a loin cloth and a spear, it probably isn’t food for you, either!

    9)Relying on the media, your doctor or even conventional nutritionists/dieticians to provide accurate nutritional information
    8 ) Believing that junk food “in moderation” is OK.
    7) Following “government guidelines” or “The Food Pyramid” for healthy eating.
    6) Thinking that “being slim” means you are healthy—using weight as your litmus of “good health”.
    5) Using vitamins to “make up for” unhealthy eating habits.
    4)Believing that exercise can “make up for” unhealthy eating habits.
    3) The belief that “genetics is destiny”.
    2) The belief that eating healthy means having to give up enjoyment of food, good flavor, fat, dietary cholesterol or animal source foods.
    1)The belief or assumption that eating a quality diet is too expensive…or too difficult or complicated to maintain.
    Perhaps you would care to refute with facts any of her wildly exaggerated and willfully disregarding of the truth statements. To me this looks like a basic paleo 101 template (dare I even say blueprint).

  10. #30
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    798
    PrimalCon New York
    Endotoxins (under construction)


Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •